> > > > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a camera > > company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and buy > > more > > of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be > > supported, and be worthless. > > > > Tom C. > >Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes Pentax >down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of >which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that >will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. > >If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody >will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. > >So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them >lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. > >Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture >quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely >worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the next >few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. > >So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall >buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some >other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will >actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. > >John >
I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane dead-end street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a different street or get a different vehicle. I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology in 5 - 10 years? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
